Patients, who have suffered a spinal cord injury, may have a much better chance of recovery, when surgery is performed soon after the injury. New research confirms to California spinal injury lawyers that the extent of damage after a spinal injury can be limited by performing surgery quickly on a patient.

 

According to the research, the chances of better recovery increase substantially when the patient undergoes surgery within 24 hours of the injury. Conventional medical wisdom has held that it is better to delay surgery on a spinal cord injury victim. The logic behind this theory was that the spinal cord injury site was already in a state of trauma, and operating on the site would increase trauma, and possibly amplify damage. The new research however, seems to indicate that this is not really true.

 

The research is based on clinical trials, which included 313 patients with spinal cord injury from the U.S. and Canada. According to the clinical trials, patients who underwent decompression surgery within 24 hours of the injury showed substantial improvement in their neurological recovery. These patients were less likely to suffer paralysis, and were more likely to report substantial neurological improvement.

 

Approximately 20% of the patients showed improvement after the surgery. In fact, one in five patients with a cervical spine injury who underwent surgery 24 hours after the injury, walked away after the surgery with no signs of paralysis. In contrast, among the persons who had surgery later, less than 9% showed marked improvement.

 

However, the effect of the surgery is seen only in those patients who have suffered injuries to the cervical spine area, or the upper spine region.

Ford Motor Company has agreed to settle with two firms seeking damages on behalf of a young girl who was paralyzed in a 2006 auto accident. The case touched on a number of complicated issues but has finally lead to a situation deemed favorable by all parties.

Karina Lozano was riding in the back seat of her father's 1988 Crown Victoria at the time of the accident. The 1988 Crown Victoria’s back seat did not come with across-the-chest seatbelts (or lap/shoulder belts) but only across-the-lap seatbelts (or lap belts). In the accident, Karina was thrown forward, breaking her lower spine. Karina also struck the back of her father's seat with her head, causing neck and spinal cord injuries. As a result, Karina is now a quadriplegic and must use a motorized wheelchair. Karina's father was also injured, but not nearly so severely. His seatbelt included a shoulder belt, and his worst injury was a broken leg. He has since completely recovered.

The difference in the toll the accident took on Karina and her father is painfully clear. It also speaks volumes about the longstanding belief that one is safer in the back seat of a car when that car is involved in a collision. The case was a difficult one and took a long time to reach a resolution, highlighting just how complex accident cases can be even when injuries and the appearance of negligence suggest a certain clarity.

The federal government only started requiring lap/shoulder style seatbelts from 1989 on, the year after the Crown Victoria in question was manufactured. Additionally, there are laws limiting liability in cases where the vehicle involved is more than 10 years old. In this case, Georgia law allowed the case to go forward so that Karina and her father could obtain their settlement. Specifically, Georgia maintains a “duty to warn” law in the case of vehicles of questionable safety. Regardless of the year a vehicle was made, the manufacturer is required to post reasonable warnings in their product if there are reasons to expect danger.

Currently, all that remains unfinished in this case are the agreements for how to handle the settlement. Katrina's attorneys are setting up a trust for the young lady. Once those details have been sorted out, Ford will begin paying the settlement to the trust.